Author
Topic: 70-200 F2.8 mark I or mark II?! (Read 33581 times)

I just bought one the other day to accompany my mkiii after much debate between the Tamron and this, and believe me when I tell you, this lens is amazing. I had been shooting with the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, (great lens) but my pictures took a crazy jump in every single aspect. I was definitely worried at first about the price vs performance part, but let me tell you, I am no longer worried and am glad to have invested my money in such a great lens. To quote a friend of mine, "If you don't have this lens, don't buy any other lens until you get it."

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

I find it interesting how many people sang the praises of the mkI for many years, calling it one of Canon's great lenses...then suddenly it's a dog when the mkII comes out. Did the lens change? Or our perception of it? Obviously the latter. Certainly the mkII is the better lens, all sources indicate to. The question is, whether you have to spend the additional money for it, or would the mkI or Tamaron work satisfactorily for your needs? Only you can decide. I have the mkI, I find it's satisfactory for most of what I need it for. I'm happy with images from 100mm to 200mm, at 70mm I seem to get less critical sharpness, though not unusable. Fortunately, I tend to use this lens more at the upper ranges, so this isn't a dire issue for me. I do like to stop down to f/3.5 when possible, but I don't shy from f/2.8 if needed, and can get satisfactory results. On portraits (what I mainly use it for) I get detail in eyelashes and such, so it serves it's function, and the bokeh is a wonderful creamy texture (I've heard the mkII is a bit more harsh in that feature). Would I like to have a mkII? Sure, sounds like it would be nice. Do I feel I NEED a mkII? Not necessarily, I'm able to produce completely acceptable and sellable (the last being the most important to me as I'm a full time professional) images with the mkI, so as a business decision it's better for me to just keep the mkI.

Should you get a mkI? If you want the most critically sharp lens, and money isn't an issue, then probably not. If you want a reasonably good performing lens, one that was widely accepted as a quality lens for over a decade when it was a current model, and can find a good copy at a decent price, it may meet your needs. That's for you to decide, don't let others opinions with no perspective on your needs be the only factor in your decision. Calculate you needs and make an educated decision from there.

My Canon 70-200 2.8 IS version 1 is great. It's been a highly-regarded lens. The new one, as you are finding out gets rave reviews. It seems pretty strange to me that someone here reports trying 20 copies. Who does that ? 20 copies ?

Now that I'm shooting with a full-frame camera I would like to update my lenses to MK ll versions. Because my 70-200 is so good it will likely be the last one I replace. The new lenses sure are expensive.

Had all three of them several times, and it's absolutely no contest at aaall. the mk2 is completely superior in every regard, especially there it matters most, AF speed and accuracy and wide-open performance.

I have owned several copies of the v1 and one copy of the v2. One of my v1 lenses was sharp and the other just wasn't that great (both calibrated to the bodies via FoCal). My v2 lens is night and day better than either of my v1. I would agree that you have to be sure to get a good copy of the v1 lens but so far I have not heard people complain about quality copies of the v2.